route_analysis

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool requires a Network Analyst license, reads stops, and writes results to out_features. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., whether inputs are modified) or behavior when overwrite is false. This is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences: first sentence defines the core function, second adds use cases and requirements. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (not shown but noted), the description covers the routing workflow well. It lacks mention of output schema details, but those are provided elsewhere. Slightly incomplete in explaining the result format.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is high (0% description coverage but schema has detailed parameter descriptions). The description adds little beyond the schema, only reiterating the overall process. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the semantic burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Solve the best route through ordered stop points using ArcPy Network Analyst MakeRouteAnalysisLayer.' This is a specific verb-resource pair, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like closest_facility or od_cost_matrix.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description lists explicit use cases (A-to-B routing, multi-stop field visits, logistics paths, etc.) and notes licensing requirements. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with sibling tools, but the context is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.